benchmark scores let me hear them

[Maghoul]

at 1440p at max settings im sitting around ~12000 some odd points and on 1080p im sitting a bit over 21000 points like 21600 something



my gpu: 4060ti(16gb)
my cpu: ryzen 7 5700X3D
my ram: 64GB

[Hornbach Loungeset]

Originally posted by del_bosque_dol:

Originally posted by Hornbach Loungeset:

at 1080p with fsr/framegen.

Yes, i believe you.

FSR quality settings do not cause input lag.

Some people misunderstand and what they really distrust frame generation, but I remind you that this game has animation lag that will cause you more lag at higher fps.

Having fixed fps during game play will be more stable.

Wasn't trying to be mean or anything to that guy, i just have a hard time putting my thoughts on paper. No offense.

I'm very aware of how framegen performs best, personally i don't mind it for action games like Black myth wukong, Ninja gaiden and monster hunter since i'm able to have a consistent 60FPS on those games, so framegen feels fine.

Wild's problem is that it has these massive framedips and framegen does not like it when it dips below 60fps. 45fps cap with framegen also works tbh, but still not optimal.

I also think it's useless to use framegen in a benchmark, since like you said, higher/inconsistent fps with framegen isn't great.

[del_bosque_dol]

Originally posted by Vegadrive:

Have they said anything about a FPS lock option will be available in the full game?

PS does have that feature to select graphics or 120fps mode, and that alone makes this game PS exclusive.

Just my opinion. Your gears may not be capable of running anything fixed.

[del_bosque_dol]

Originally posted by Hornbach Loungeset:

Originally posted by del_bosque_dol:

FSR quality settings do not cause input lag.

Some people misunderstand and what they really distrust frame generation, but I remind you that this game has animation lag that will cause you more lag at higher fps.

Having fixed fps during game play will be more stable.

Wasn't trying to be mean or anything to that guy, i just have a hard time putting my thoughts on paper. No offense.

I'm very aware of how framegen performs best, personally i don't mind it for action games like Black myth wukong, Ninja gaiden and monster hunter since i'm able to have a consistent 60FPS on those games, so framegen feels fine.

Wild's problem is that it has these massive framedips and framegen does not like it when it dips below 60fps. 45fps cap with framegen also works tbh, but still not optimal.

I also think it's useless to use framegen in a benchmark, since like you said, higher/inconsistent fps with framegen isn't great.

Exactly, frame dip that really concerns. And I have been sounding all day like a complete jerk but 8gb vram that 4060 has, which is a crime. And all what that single aspect will be devastating for causing frame dip during combats.

[Maghoul]

Originally posted by Surgical:

Originally posted by Maghoul:

first off i'm going to tell you this, 4060ti (16gb) does just fine at 1440p i run every game over 60fps and a decent amount of games at over 100fps like cyberpunk at max settings, don't tell me how bad my gpu is you're comparing it to objectively better hardware so duh it's going to look like garbage in that context it's a good card for what it is and i only spent ~300 something dollars for it, my old gpu was a 1080, not even the 1080ti and i've been short on funds for a little while so the 4060ti(16gb) is perfect for what I do and the price was reasonable, if the 4060ti didnt have a 16gb vram version i'd have never bought it, once i run into more money i fully intend on getting a better card so do not sit here and tell me how well MY card that I use runs because IM the one whos actually seeing how well it runs it does perfectly fine at 1440p I'VE seen it do over 60fps consistantly at 1440p and sometimes consistantly over 100fps so if you want to argue about how i'm wrong i will not respond to you beyond this reply, that being said i got it a few months ago i dont have a lot of money to work with i needed an upgrade and this was in my price range it does what i needed it to do i will upgrade when i can afford it but this card is 100% ok for the price i bought it for, no ifs ands or buts im not comparing it to other cards because DUH the 4070 and up are better

bs, a 4090 at max settings with DLSS runs cyberpunk around 150-180 fps, you ain't running ♥♥♥♥ over 100 on max settings at 1440p.

i dont need you to believe me it's the truth i know what my game runs at the only reason i went with a 4060ti vs a 30 something was because the dlss technology that the 40 series has made my card better than the 30 series that i could also afford

[Dave from work]

I'm likely bottlenecked by my monitor or something but:

Score: 26004 - 1920x1080
Overall settings: Ultra (raytracing maxed and Framegen on)
Cpu: Amd Ryzen 9 9900x 12-core
Gpu: AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT

Avergage FPS: 153.01

I failed to notice if the benchmarking tool really tested reflective surfaces or multiple creatures at all, so I'm going to assume it didnt, and that I'll see some drops when it does occur.

I had to run out the door for work, so couldnt really tinker with the settings much.
Might mess around with it later.

[Doranvel]

Score: 28,925
Average: 85.31 fps
Resolution: 2560x1440

Max settings, Ray tracing on, DLSS Quality, Frame Generation off

4070ti
9800x3D
64GB

[Darkom]

20225
12600k
4060

[FireGryph]

24137
Avg: 70.56

Res: 3840x2160 (4k)
Ultra
AMD 9800x3D
RX 7900 XTX
32GB RAM
Driver: 24.12.1

Frame Gen off.

Dipped to around 58 fps during the grasslands scene, and dropped to a low of about 48 FPS during the village. Seems to be struggling with the multiple small objects to render at once. No issues apart from those though.

[NeoX]

Originally posted by FireGryph:

24137
Avg: 70.56

Res: 3840x2160 (4k)
Ultra
AMD 9800x3D
RX 7900 XTX
32GB RAM
Driver: 24.12.1

Frame Gen off.

Dipped to around 58 fps during the grasslands scene, and dropped to a low of about 48 FPS during the village. Seems to be struggling with the multiple small objects to render at once. No issues apart from those though.

Did you use raytracing? Its not automaticly applied when selecting "Ultra settings".
Could you do a quick 1080P test and tell me what you have in the village?

In my tests i got down to ~78 fps there with "only" 94% GPU load (what speaks for a CPU bottleneck).

https://youtu.be/-uricga09EA?si=7yA2cNgpX5AjNGb0&t=1148 (timestamp set)

It would be great to know if your X3D cache helps better in this situation, then the 4 cores more of my 9900X. That way we could determen if more cores/threads are usefull, or highler clockspeed and cache.

Settings 1080P Ultra, full native rendering, no RT please. Thank you!

[Tsuruugi]

My Specs:

OS: Windows 11 Home
CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 5700X3D
COOLER: NZXT Kraken 240 Water Cooler
GPU: XFX Speedster MERC310 7900XT
MOBO: Asus ROG Strix B55-F Gaming
MEM: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series DDR4 64GB
STORAGE: 1TB UD90 NVMe 4.0 Gen4

Resolution: 1440P, Native AA, Ultra Settings, Frame Generation, FSR
Score: 21109 - Honestly don't know the tech behind how this ranks but okay?
Avg FPS: 125 with a few dips here and there but overall smooth

https://youtu.be/AD4L6J6Xe8s?si=gidDcLzXfULoGlfc

[IShotMyLastMuse]

the results are in and hot damn

cpu intel 13500
gpu rtx 4070ti @1440p driver version 572.16
16 Gb ddr 4

1
all settings maxed out, including RT, no dlss/FG
score 18799
average fps 55.37

2
same as 1 but dlss set to balanced:
score 19008
average fps 55.83

3
same as 1 but dlss set to max performance
score 18825
average fps 55.35 (make that make sense)

4
same as 1 but dlss set to max performance and FG on
score 17650
average fps 104.34

i am unimpressed.

[Schrödinges Hifi]

Nvidia Geforce RTX 4700 Ti Super | AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D | 32 GB RAM 6000 M/s | 1920x1080

I am no tech-savy so take what i say with some grain of salt, this is just from my experience and what i think and feel about it.

I've tried this on Ultra (1080p) settings 4 times with couple of changes to the upscaling, unlimited FPS just to see where things hit.

28000~ Score / Average FPS 83
DLSS Quality (Off) / Frame Generation (Off)
Ray Tracing (On)

31000~ Score / Average FPS 91
DLSS Quality (Off) / Frame Generation (Off)
Ray Tracing (Off)

33700~ Score / Average FPS 99
DLSS Quality (On) / Frame Generation (Off)
Ray Tracing (Off)

30400~ Score / Average FPS 89
DLSS NVIDIA DLAA (On) / Frame Generation (Off)
Ray Tracing (Off)

All of them having two things in common regardless of Upscaling mode.

Just before the food scene with the town with all the blue windchimes (I assume, maybe feathers) Things looked Low Res like Anti-Aliasing was turned off. Specifically for that town is the only time i noticed that Low Res visual rendering stand out and not during before or after it.
And I've played several other games more resource demanding or similar on various Upscaling on/off that has sharper image then Wilds and consistent FPS above 100.
The only one that looked less Low Res out of them was with DLSS turned off (Score 31000~) which i found odd because i thought it was a upscaler method.

Second thing in common is the moment when character leaps off the rock right after the weather affects shifts, the FPS drops considerably by 20-30 FPS.
Was still hitting between 60-80 FPS on all these settings during that entire moment until it went up again once the camera pans towards the uphill of sand on which couple of the creatures gets swallowed up by the ground, with exception of the one that scored 28000, that went low as 55-60 FPS.
Then again its ray tracing which barely has any visual benefits beside reflection most of the time, so its just a waste to have it on anyway.

However, this benchmark is playing it safe so far by not showing too much of the more resource intensive moments for too long or often enough and doesn't even show fights, so i have my doubts and would consider to take this benchmark with a grain of salt.

I'm happy that i can hit 60 FPS at all which is something i prefer for action games like these, but also disappointed that its struggling to hit 100 consistently on any upscaling mode when several other games I'd argue looks better and sharper image does it seemingly better and often hit the 120 fps mark consistently.
Frame Gen i gave up on by default (And don't have faith in) because its extremely ugly because there is notable visual "afterimages" on movements that i can see with my eyeballs that is very distracting. I rather they optimize it better then leaning on this "tech" like a crutch.

I probably blame the RE-Engine though as its built more for a more claustrophobic game such as Resident Evil 2, which worked great and was a much smoother/stable experience compared to open expansive areas like MH Wilds.

I kind of doubt it will have a big playerbase on launch or very least recurrent one in long term due its demanding specs just to achieve stable frames. this is kind of yikes on several levels, quite sure not many want to fork out huge sum of money or specifically can't to circumstances just to play this 69 euro priced game that has what i could consider, poor optimization.

[GamingWithSilvertail]

Originally posted by del_bosque_dol:

Originally posted by Vegadrive:

Have they said anything about a FPS lock option will be available in the full game?

PS does have that feature to select graphics or 120fps mode, and that alone makes this game PS exclusive.

Just my opinion. Your gears may not be capable of running anything fixed.

ttps:/x.com/QuirklessStoner/status/1869748112010658281

My dude.

If you think wiklds will run 120 hrtz...

[NeoX]

Originally posted by Schrödinges Hifi:

Nvidia Geforce RTX 4700 Ti Super | AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D | 32 GB RAM 6000 M/s | 1920x1080

I am no tech-savy so take what i say with some grain of salt, this is just from my experience and what i think and feel about it.

I've tried this on Ultra (1080p) settings 4 times with couple of changes to the upscaling, unlimited FPS just to see where things hit.

28000~ Score / Average FPS 83
DLSS Quality (Off) / Frame Generation (Off)
Ray Tracing (On)

31000~ Score / Average FPS 91
DLSS Quality (Off) / Frame Generation (Off)
Ray Tracing (Off)

33700~ Score / Average FPS 99
DLSS Quality (On) / Frame Generation (Off)
Ray Tracing (Off)

30400~ Score / Average FPS 89
DLSS NVIDIA DLAA (On) / Frame Generation (Off)
Ray Tracing (Off)

Nice! We got close to the same results in 1080P.

My Benchmark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uricga09EA

Average Frames Native Maximum Settings Raytracing = 80,85fps
Average Frames FSR/Gen Maximum Settings Raytracing = 162,54fps
Average Frames Native Maximum Settings NO Raytracing = 89,58fps
Average Frames FSR/Gen Maximum Settings NO Raytracing = 174,4fps

Average Frames Native Medium Settings Raytracing = 92,81fps
Average Frames FSR/Gen Medium Settings Raytracing = 191,02fps
Average Frames Native Medium Settings NO Raytracing = 99,7fps
Average Frames FSR/Gen Medium Settings NO Raytracing = 199,32fps

Average Frames Native Minimum Settings Raytracing = 99,13fps
Average Frames FSR/Gen Minimum Settings Raytracing = 197,97fps
Average Frames Native Minimum Settings NO Raytracing = 103,85fps
Average Frames FSR/Gen Minimum Settings NO Raytracing = 211,72fps

One question that i would like to ask. What are your fps-numbers when you did look into the open gras and when entering the village( 1st camera shot). there many reports to go down to the low 50's with a CPU bottleneck. Could you check that for me please? I want to know if more cores (4 more cores of the 9900X comapred to the 8 of 7800X3D) can handle the situation better, or if higher clockspeed and more cache (X3D) is still the best solution for these situations.

Thank you in advance!

[FireGryph]

Originally posted by NeoX:

Did you use raytracing? Its not automaticly applied when selecting "Ultra settings".
Could you do a quick 1080P test and tell me what you have in the village?

In my tests i got down to ~78 fps there with "only" 94% GPU load (what speaks for a CPU bottleneck).

https://youtu.be/-uricga09EA?si=7yA2cNgpX5AjNGb0&t=1148 (timestamp set)

It would be great to know if your X3D cache helps better in this situation, then the 4 cores more of my 9900X. That way we could determen if more cores/threads are usefull, or highler clockspeed and cache.

Settings 1080P Ultra, full native rendering, no RT please. Thank you!

Did a quick test with raytracing on medium, at 1080p. Using HWinfo64 for monitoring, CPU stayed around 50% utilization, GPU stays at 100% except for the dips when scenes transitioned.
Village was an average of around 86ish FPS, with drops down to a low of around 65 at the start of the village.
No anti-aliasing, no frame gen.
Final score, if it even matters, was 34382 with an average 101.10 FPS.